Opinion | Two smaller governments better than going metro

The central theme and purpose of consolidation seems to be efficiency and cost savings. Two items all would agree are wise.

When a municipality grows to the point of encompassing the entire land area and more of its domain, there comes to exist two governmental units, one city and one county. Duplication of services is the result.

For efficiency, a model of government called “metropolitan” is adopted, which does away with having two governmental agencies and consolidates into one central authority. This has been the case in the Nashville/Davidson situation. Makes perfect sense for them.

Keeping this in mind, contrast it with the situation in Tampa/St. Petersburg/Clearwater Florida. The region has over 3 million population and involves three counties and dozens of small municipalities each with their own governments and services. It seems a perfect situation to adopt the “metropolitan” model of administration. Yet, there is no desire to do so. The big question is, why? What do these people know or think that we might need to be aware?

There can be but one simple reason: Consolidated and centralized authority is harder to reach by the average citizen.

Simply put, large, powerful, distant governmental authority is less attractive than smaller and more intimate authority. The tax revenue is kept closer to home and for the needs of those paying for it. The metro model pools the revenue and spends it where it sees the greatest need. That does not let the citizen necessarily benefit from his tax dollar if it is not in his area.

Duplication of services is a small price to pay for having a say in where and how one prefers to live. A one-size-fits-all type of governmental authority is efficient all right, but it may not be what the citizen wants to live under.